Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns specific fields (title, author, etc.) but does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or result ordering. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: the first clearly states the action and output, the second gives usage context. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description lists the return fields (title, author, read time, etc.) despite no output schema. It is sufficiently complete for a simple search tool with two parameters. Could include example search terms or mention variation in results, but not necessary.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers both parameters (query and max_results) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches dev.to for developer articles, tutorials, and posts, and lists the specific fields returned (title, author, read time, etc.). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like get_steam_games and search_podcasts by specifying the platform and content type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use for learning new dev topics, finding tutorials, or staying updated on developer community trends.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no confusion arises.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.